"These [common law] rights consist, primarily, in the free
enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private
property…to vindicate these rights when actually violated or
attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place,
to the regular administration and free course of justice in the
courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and
parliament for redress of grievances and lastly, to the right of
having and using arms for self preservation and defence."
(Don't worry everyone, that's not in any Bill of
Rights - well, not one that counts, anyhow.)
I started this page with the intention of building a resource of
documents and links that came to my notice and that relate to the
Dunblane Massacre, the Inquiry by Lord Cullen (which see for
details of the events at Dunblane on 13 March 1996) that was
held in Stirling, and the individual, public, political and
legislative responses to these events. As that event fades into the
past the page begins to address more contemporary events, as befits
a web document. However, I still see the Dunblane Massacre and the
public and "official" responses to it as a defining event in
British public and political life so the page title stands.
Anyone with suitable contributions or questions, pro- or anti-,
email me.
Note: opinions expressed here are my own. I
represent no body or organisation other than myself. Any other
personal, or group, opinions represented on these pages are
attributed where applicable and do not necessarily represent views
endorsed by me. readme.1st
"In a major reality blast to those who tote gun bans in the name
of Mahatma Gandhi and other famous leaders, it is actually a
little-known fact that Gandhi himself was openly opposed to gun
bans. In fact, he proclaimed a nationwide gun disarmament to be the
'blackest' deed of the entire British ruling period in India."
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would
things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out
at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would
return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during
periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they
arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat
there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the
downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had
understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in
the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes,
hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would
very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport
and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine
would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn't love freedom enough.
And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation…. We
purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
US gun owners debate the same old talking
points, 2013-01-03
Same old BS… let's figure out "reasonable restrictions."
Then having identified guns as a causal agent and gained
acceptance of that premise inevitably the end result is a total
ban. This is blindingly obvious and yet still people can
be baffled by a few thousands words of grammatically correct
sophistry.
Thomas Hamilton killed a school full of children in 1996 under
UK gun laws your gun grabbers dream about (i.e. post the 1988
semi-auto rifle ban). Derek Bird killed a dozen people in a spree
killing using a double barrel shot gun and a .22 bolt action rifle
in 2010 (i.e. post the 96/97 handgun ban).
Either you guys get your heads in the game and understand what
"shall not be infringed" means or hand them in now and save the
government money from the trouble of rounding them up at
gunpoint.
A rational take on the Newton, Colorado shootings of 14
December 2012 from TheTrutherGirls. Obviously, the tragedy
will be exploited by the authoritarian elite to further their
agenda of social control and subjugation - bathing themselves in
the blood of slaughtered children as elites have since time
immemorial.
Is this more false flag terror? Too early to tell.
Alex Jones from Alex Jones' Infowars.com gives
a cook's tour of government false flag terror. This one is just a
little too convenient for the up-coming signing of the UN gun ban
treaty. And yes, there are many problems with the official story of
what happened at Dunblane in March 1996.
Osama bin Laden can command legions of zombie mind-controlled
suicide killers from his cave in Pakistan and so can the
Directorate of the CIA from their offices in Virginia.
Couldn't happen in the UK thanks to "strict gun control" -
think again, 2011:
Derrick Bird 'Unlawfully Killed' 12 Victims. You're on your own
until help arrives… what are you going to do?
"Larkin told BBC Radio 4 that the banning order was "gross
over-reaction" and said the real reason behind it was because he
had publicly criticized the country's laws on self-defense, which
are ambiguous at best and leave victims completely vulnerable to
criminals."
"The notion that Larkin may have been banned from entering Britain
primarily because he has been critical of the country's laws on
self-defense is plausible given the fact that others like radio
talk show host Michael Savage have also been banned for holding
controversial political opinions."
"Police investigating the deaths of three women and the man who
shot them before killing himself are expected to focus on why he
owned six guns."
No prizes for guessing that the police will be found to be
without fault but "stronger controls" will be needed. Most likely,
requirement for medical checks to obtain/keep Firearm and Shot Gun
Certificates.
When it comes to government, nothing succeeds as much as
failure. Victim Disarmament campaigners are always quick to use
such tragedies as an excuse for more "gun control."
Meantime, this BBC article displays the typical shoddy
journalism and reporting.
"Mr Atherton had been a member of a gun club in the area but it
is not known if he was still an active member."
Gun clubs are required to keep a register of attendance and
allow it to be inspected by the police. So if the police really
don't know it's because they don't care.
Yet another fail for "the authorities" but, of course, it will
be business as usual thereafter.
The British black propaganda machine promotes yet another
bizarre moral panic over a non-existent "problem" meantime
promoting illegal wars that kill children in untold numbers. Are
these people simply insane or are they pure evil?
As usual in the British mainstream media, the article is a
model of bias and anti-gun demagoguery.
Switzerland's murder rate is well below that of the UK (even
after the UK government artificially massages the rate downwards
see,
Number-crunchers demand independence)
The two serious multiple shootings events in Northern England
earlier his year, by Derrick Bird in June and Raoul Moat in July,
led to an Inquiry by the UK Parliament's Home Affairs Committee
(HAC). The HAC has now issued its report and the subject was
debated in Parliament.
Don't expect any searching questions, or any useful answers, for
there aren't any. Just as there weren't any during the Inquiry, or
in the HAC Report. British politicians and police take real pride
in wasting lots of police resource on the "toughest gun control
laws in the world". They "know," absolutely know, that strict gun
controls are such a good thing, that searching questions and
research into costs and benefits would be pointless.
"Police are hopeful that the technology will reduce gun-crime in
the area and help increase conviction rates."
It makes a change from banning things that are already banned
but, I suspect, is just as futile. At least somebody is making a
lot of money at the taxpayers' expense, whichever way it goes.
Nothing rewards government so well as does failure.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, as the bumper
sticker says. If not, they're just as likely to be running in the
opposite direction or, worse, setting up a "perimeter" to "secure"
the crime scene while the dying inside proceeds apace.
Professor John Lott and Alex Jones discuss the University of
Texas, Austin, shooting that occurred on the day of Lott's
scheduled appearance to talk about victim disarmament.
The latest FBI crime stats are out and are uncomfortable
reading for the gun ban crowd, in the light of the huge guns and
ammo buying spree recently undertaken by the American public.
Although this might at first appear hilariously absurd, in
actuality it's the logical extension of the imposition of laws
denying the individual the right to bear arms. For that matter,
every breath you take will soon be regulated and taxed, all for the
greater good - supposedly.
Monday July 05, 2010 David Williams and Huw Borland, Sky News
Online
Armed police are hunting for a former nightclub bouncer they
believe shot his ex-girlfriend, killed her lover and left an
officer fighting for his life.
It should be noted that, although he had at one time been the
holder of a Shot Gun Certificate, Moat would not have been eligible
to legally own or use firearms thanks to his spell in
prison.
Don't worry the police will protect you… oh, wait…
A grandmother has been jailed for five years for possessing a
"family heirloom" World War II pistol. Gail Cochrane, 53, had kept
the gun for 29 years following the death of her father, who had
been in the Royal Navy.
Another dangerous criminal behind bars. Not.
The government is firmly in control but completely out of
control.
6:38am UK, Wednesday June 09, 2010, Rob Cole, Sky News
Online
"Kenneth Foster, 71, and his wife Josie, were watching TV when
shots were fired through their front window, showering them with
glass."
A drive-by. Good to see Britain's "strict gun control" has it
all under control. Relax, go back to watching TV.
"Adam Arnold, Sky News Online, 7:47pm UK, Wednesday June 02,
2010
Twelve people have been killed and at least 25 others injured after
a gunman went on a rampage in west Cumbria."
Another triumph for Britain's "strict gun control."
Weapons used were a 12 gauge double-barreled shotgun and CZ
452-2E ZKM .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
Are you stupid enough to believe that making yourself
defenceless makes you safer?
In case you're foolish enough to imagine more "gun control" can
make a difference, consider: Life for
Kalashnikov gunman (Manchester Evening News, July 10
2000)
14 May 2010, John Hurst writes about about the
philosophical connection between the Magna Carta Society and the
various campaigns to reclaim the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
(RKBA).
Abstract: Advocates of the proposed United Nations Arms
Trade Treaty (ATT) promise that it will prevent the flow of arms to
human rights violators. This Article first examines the ATT and
observes that the ATT, if implemented as promised, would require
dozens of additional arms embargoes, including embargoes on much of
Africa. The Article then provides case studies of the current
supply of arms to the dictatorship in Zimbabwe and to the warlords
in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The Article
argues that the ATT would do nothing to remediate the conditions
that have allowed so many arms to be acquired by human rights
violators. The ATT would have no more effective force than the
embargoes that are already imposed by the U.N. Security Council;
therefore U.N. member states, including China, which violate
current Security Council embargoes, could just as well violate ATT
embargoes. Accordingly, the ATT is a distraction, and human rights
activists should instead examine alternative methods of addressing
the problem of arms in the hands of human rights violators.
Reasons to Question the 740,000 Factoid being used to Promote
the Arms Trade Treaty by David B. Kopel, Paul
Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen
Abstract: Currently, the United Nations is drafting an
Arms Trade Treaty to impose strict controls on firearms and other
weapons. In support of hasty adoption of the Treaty, a UN-related
organization of Treaty supporters is has produced a report claiming
that armed violence is responsible for 740,000 deaths annually.
This Article carefully examines the claim. We find that the claim
is based on dubious assumptions, cherry-picking data, and
mathematical legerdemain which is inexplicably being withheld from
the public. The refusal to disclose the mathematical calculations
used to create the 740,000 factoid is itself cause for serious
suspicion; our own calculations indicate that the 740,000 figure is
far too high.
Further, while the report claims that 60% of homicides are
perpetrated with firearms, our review of the data on which report
claimed to rely yields a 22% rate. The persons responsible for the
report have refused to release their homicide calculations, or any
other calculations.
This Article also shows how a narrow focus on restricting
firearms ownership continues to distract international attention
from life-saving, viable solutions. We propose some practical
alternatives which have already saved lives in war-ravaged areas.
(Draft submitted to law review publications.)
Yet another demonstration of the fact that the UN is pushing an
agenda for global control via black propaganda and pseudo science
(nothing of this is simply about guns).
I'm confident this is simply the Tories looking for soundbites
in an attempt to differentiate themselves from New Labour -
when in fact there's no actual disconnect on policies for anything
important. (I can't see a Castle Law coming out of this.)
The whole "reasonable force" thing is a non-sequitur in actual
fact, a mis-statement of the law. "Reasonable force" in fact only
really applies to detaining somebody when making an arrest. For
common law purposes the right to self defence means the right to
use whatever force is necessary to stop the transgression against
your person or property - including lethal force and using a
weapon as necessary. The true facts of the matter have been very
carefully kept as occult knowledge in recent decades, using all
kinds of bizarre sophistry. See Mike Burke's essay, "Reasonable Force" part two.
It remains to be seen whether the true facts will emerge from
this debate. From previous experience that appears unlikely.
Yup, Gun crime in the UK is very low by international standards,
but it keeps going UP. It keeps going up in the face of Alun
Michael's proclamation that "only the strictest control of firearms
will protect the public."
It's a stone bitch when reality won't conform to the theory, isn't
it? And it's even worse when someone points it out.
Switzerland's "bad example" is a perennial thorn in the side of
victim disarmament advocates everywhere. I expect the well-funded
trans-national efforts to end the Swiss militia system to expand
and continue. There's no way an anti-gun movement can make any
headway in Switzerland without significant foreign funding and
pressure from foreign governments.
"The Swiss government has rejected a people's initiative that
aims to ban more than one million military weapons from Swiss
households."
"It said on Wednesday that current legislation on weapons offered
enough protection against abuse and that it was not going to put
forward a counter-proposal to the initiative."
You're on your own until help arrives… good luck with
that…
As I frequently remark, the police are not here to
protect you. The police are here to "maintain public
order" - which when translated into what the police are
actually observed to do turns out to be that the police are
primarily concerned with revenue collection and social
control measures applied to that. Whatever it is the police are
supposed to be, the police have no responsibility to
protect you as an individual. Instead, the police actively
take steps to prevent you from being able to protect
yourself - because that might interfere with revenue
collection.
The police will come out on the streets to maintain public
order when it suits the elite classes - check out YouTube
footage of the various G20 summit police/military deployments,
police agent provocateur included.
Britain is a Police State and as such thrives on terror and on
fear, used to cow the population, especially in these times of
economic crisis.
As for, "new government measures to tackle the problem" and
such nostrums remember that when it comes to government nothing
succeeds like failure. Expect more of your rights and liberties to
disappear.
"Of the 41 people convicted, all but three had previous
convictions…"
…so people who, clearly, aren't impressed by the law are going to
start taking notice if you really, really mean it. Bullshit.
Self-defence is a human right, laws against the carrying of
weapons disarm only those who are minded to obey law. It's human
nature! I despair at how dumb people are!
Fact: Britain is a police state. The police
are not here to protect you, they never have been, they
are here to protect public order not you.
But, for me, the most sickening aspect of this affair is not
the behaviour of the police and government - that is business as
usual - it is the members of the public who make comments
supporting the police action. Go watch, The
Nazis - A Warning From History [DVD] [1997]
(Amazon.co.uk) and think for yourself.
An interesting Blog flamewar re victim disarmament has ignited
that's dragged both sides of the Atlantic into the fray.
Serendipitously, I recently met Guy Smith of http://www.gunfacts.info fame for a
session of contemplation on the Tree of Woe. Guy has not grasped
why Brits accept the awful violent crime and the denial of their
right to self-defence. Of course, I wasn't the one to be able to
explain but examination of the threads in this blogwar will give
insight.
(The best I came up with, I think, is my currently favoured
observation: fact is, the average person is as dumb as a bag of
hammers and 50% of people are even dumber than that.)
A typical example: Gun Sales Soar Over Obama Crackdown
Fears, Sky News reports with a strong anti-self defence
slant stating that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens
will create violence - without any reference to actual
facts.
It appears that it is impossible for most people to grasp that
deliberately making yourself defenceless cannot make you
safer.
I remarked to Guy, recently via email, that I might as well be
living in a village in the Middle Ages trying to argue that demons
don't exist.
The same tired old calls to ban banned things some more
(despite it being widely acknowledged that Germany's numerous "gun
control" laws are onerous and strictly enforced in a typically
efficient manner). Even though the British experience amply
demonstrates it won't make any difference: Life for
Kalashnikov gunman (Manchester Evening News, July 10
2000) - a shooting spree with multiple banned weapons in the
UK. Quite apart from consideration of the gunning down of soldiers
and policemen in Northern Ireland.
Crazy people wandering around and indulging in killing sprees.
By the time the police "rapid response team" turns up it's all
over. And yet, supposedly, I'm crazy for wanting a gun to defend
myself.
The National Ballistics Database goes on-line. The government
never tires of databases despite the fact that in actual use the
benefits are negligible whilst the costs are high. But great for
generating paperwork and making "targets."
"The 43 English and Welsh police forces are the most expensive
in the world and are in need of dramatic change, the think tank
Reform has said."
"It says they are run as inefficient and costly fiefdoms
accountable only to weak police authorities."
That should read, "inefficient and corrupt." The police in the
UK are little better than organised crime, extorting money from the
general public by way of fines and forfeitures being their primary
concern and activity.
Any "reform" will be as effective as shuffling the deck-chairs
on the Titanic. The systemic corruption of Britain's
governmental and quasi-governmental organizations is being exposed
by the economic crisis destroying the wealth (largely derived from
North Sea oil and gas and financial market usury) that heretofore
masked just how deeply the cancer runs.
That is what the political classes are worried about - how
will the people react when the bread and circuses disappear?
Scots politicians never see a ban (or a tax imposition/hike)
that they don't like.
In actuality this is more about the powers of Westminster vs
Holyrood than "gun control" and gun owners in general, and air gun
owners in particular, are just a convenient politically impotent
minority for Scottish politicians to flex their political muscle
on.
"The number of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen
to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent
crime."
As usual with "news reporting" and "official figures" you pays
your money and you takes your choices as suits your own personal
prejudices. (For the information of our foreign viewers I note:
The Daily Telegraph supports the Tory Party, currently the
party in opposition, and The Independent supports the
present Labour Government.)
The drop in gun-related deaths may be the sign of something
else entirely: that the hospital system is becoming better at
dealing with the recipients of gunshot wounds (perhaps aided by
developments in combat medicine from Iraq and Afghanistan) and the
mortality rate is falling even though gun crime isn't.
More proof, were any needed, of the futility of "gun
control."
And no, I don't know him. Some of the comments are hilarious in
their stupidity.
A correspondent has pointed out to me that they forgot to
print, "deadly arsenal" in the headline and says he hopes that the
police won't show too much interest in the "potentially lethal
knives" he's got in his kitchen drawer.
"I hope you will agree that the publication of prematurely
released and unchecked statistics is corrosive of public trust in
official statistics"
Sir Michael Scholar, UK Statistics Authority
As I've said before - there are lies, damned lies, and then
there are government statistics.
And all the announcements that will be made about what has been
done, is being done, to "fix" this - more lies.
Government statistics are not information, they are black
propaganda.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing
can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds public
opinion is greater than he who enacts laws."
President Abraham Lincoln
Police death squads in operation in the UK - worthy of any
South American banana republic.
The police clearly lied and the jury did not believe their
lies.
The Coroner ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing because,
however much you pretend to yourself otherwise, agents of the state
must be able to kill with impunity to impose "liberal democracy" on
the subject. The only basis for the rule of law in this country is
the gun - our constitution (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, the Treaty
of the Union) were torn up and replaced by lies, long ago.
Notice anti-gunners are reduced to inventing reasons why
Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) Laws, that allow citizens to legally
carry guns for self-defence, weren't the cause of the drops in the
crime rates in the US - a bit of a comedown from the claims
anti-gun groups made that "blood would run in the streets" as the
result of citizens being allowed the means to self-defence. The
best argument anti-gunners can raise against CCW laws is a claim
that they make no difference. And people wonder why all I can do is
laugh and point at such idiots?
Coming? It's already here you stupid asshole. As if the Tories
would behave any differently if they held the machinery of
power.
As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for
the record, each containing a number of questions … There are thus
hundreds of little threads radiating from every man, millions of
threads in all. If these threads were suddenly to become visible,
the whole sky would look like a spider's web, and if they
materialized as rubber bands, buses; trams and even people would
all lose the ability to move, and the wind would be unable to carry
torn-up newspapers or autumn leaves along the streets of the city.
They are not visible, they are not material, but every man is
constantly aware of their existence… Each man, permanently aware of
his own invisible threads, naturally develops a respect for the
people who manipulate the threads.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Cancer Ward, 1968.
The Republic of Ireland, ironically enough, follows Britain's
lead in banning legally held handguns.
"Criminal justice legislation already being drafted will be
amended to include provisions that will ban the granting of handgun
licences under any circumstances."
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack
Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the
ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace
information, and give police officers across the nation the tools
they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.
Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the
Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from
children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support
closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country
childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault
Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign
battlefields and not on our streets.
(retrieved Fri Nov 7 21:20:44 UTC 2008 from
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/.)
The UK media is reporting the gun and ammo buying spree by the
American public as some kind of racist paranoia, yet on Barack
Obama's own website he details plans to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban and deprive
American citizens of their lawful, constitutional rights.
If Obama's approach to public policy in general is as bizarre
and nonsensical as the notion of "making guns in this country
childproof" then not just America but the whole world is in very
deep trouble indeed.
It proves yet again, if proof were needed, the duplicity of the
mainstream media and that the law offers no real protection for
fundamental human rights.
(2008-11-09) Sky News, at least, have payed
attention to the email I sent them and have edited their coverage
to correctly report Obama's stance: Obama Win Triggers US Gun
Rush. Of course, their linked news stories don't mention
self-defence usage nor analyse the fall in homicide rates after the
passing of CCW
laws but instead emphasize criminal misuse.
Apart from the fact that Scottish politicians have
banititus to an even greater extent than the English, this
is political posturing to do with the powers devolved to the
Scottish Parliament by the Westminster Parliament. Notice how air
guns have morphed into "air weapons." The larger agenda is
criminalizing the activities of the law-abiding as a part of the
process of building a police state. That's plainly what's being
done: Centuries of British
freedoms being 'broken' by security state, says Sir Ken
Macdonald (The Telegraph).
"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must
have the possibility of practising his or her sport in accordance
with his or her needs."
Yet another ostensibly pro-gun group that is actually doing a
disservice by discrediting and distracting from the existence of
and necessity for the right to keep and bear arms.
Guns are weapons. You shoot to kill or you don't shoot at
all.
"The area is known to harbour a number of young gangsters in
their late teens or early 20s. Police say these people have ready
access to firearms and an easy willingness to use them. They favour
using motorcycles to carry out their hits."
It's got everything really: a blood feud between warring drugs
gangs, live-fast-die-young, drive-bys on motorcycles, fat
hard-drinking dull-witted (yeah, I know, it's Scotland and that
describes a fair chunk of the entire adult population) policemen
one step behind - and even babies held hostage! Of course it's
really just spill-over from Glasgow.
In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's
Heller decision, desperate anti-gunners are grasping at
pseudoscientific "research" to revive their gun-ban plans.
by Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen
Their closing words are highly relevant to the UK:
We must begin to demand that researchers who are guilty of
deliberate deception offer more accurate information, and adhere to
more rigorous scientific principles, so that public policy is
premised on sound research, not on junk science.
"…we considered, that because the ads featured a glamorous
actress, action poses, several images of or related to guns and
aspirational text, they could be seen to glamourise the use of guns
and violence."
In the UK, even pictures of guns are too dangerous for the
public to handle.
This report from a UK newspaper makes it clear that, whilst the
victims are disarmed and defenceless thanks to the law, criminal
use of firearms is flourishing.
The Guardian's source said that guns were becoming a first
rather than a last recourse. "A gun used to be used as a mediator;
now everything is re[s]olved with a gun. It's brought the heat on
everyone. Before you would get a two [years jail sentence], now
it's a five. It's getting like the US now, like The Wire. It's like
a prediction of what will happen here. I think they all think
they're playing Grand Theft Auto. It's madness out there."
According to this Guardian report it would appear the UK
is more like America than America itself. And, of course, the
picture is mis-captioned: it's an Enfield No 2 Mk I*
revolver, not a Webley - I helpfully emailed them a correction
on that but, I fear, there's not much I can do for the rest of the
article.
Brazilian politicians believing they can get mileage out of
blaming the guns for Brazil's problem with crime. Since presumably
the ignorant and unsophisticated people of Brazil are happy to
embrace the tenets of sympathetic magic…
just as the population of the UK does. Actually, the Brazilians
seem to be a bit more clued-up and intelligent than Britoids:
Brazilians claimed back their right to
self-defence in a previous attempt by their government to deny
them their rights.
The political classes everywhere refuse to take "no" for an
answer when it doesn't match their agenda.
Edinburgh Council proving it can always do something to look
even more foolish - though the Edinburgh courts are giving
them a run for their money:
Man fined for carrying gobstopper (BBC News).
We're supposed to believe that banning airguns will make all
those people who would misuse them mysteriously safe. Or maybe
they're just trying to turn Scotland into one big open prison
because they can't keep the criminals in
the prisons.
Via sympathetic magic the guns
cause the crime, it being Africa and all. They forgot to mention
that the local Witchdoctor blesses each one so's to turn the bearer
into a spree-killer zombie.
Damn those witches in league with Satan. Think of the
children!
Only a fraction of mankind has emerged from the Dark Ages. Have
you?
"But does it really give the householder a new legal right? That
is how it is being presented. But it looks uncannily like the old
law to me, now in a new act of parliament."
I'm amazed by the fact that, in The Guardian of all
places, a British journalist is calling out the Government on its
propaganda. (Of course, The Guardian retains plausible
deniability by putting it in the "comment is free" section.)
It's highly unusual to observe this sort of behaviour on the
part of mainstream media but, once in a while, the truth slips out.
Gordon Brown must be really unpopular with the political
classes.
"Knife violence in Britain is far worse than official statistics
suggest, with almost 14,000 people taken to hospital for injuries
caused by knives and other sharp weapons last year."
"Stab and bullet-proof vests are being ordered in their tens of
thousands to protect employees from increased levels of aggression,
a move described as 'a shameful indictment of violence in Britain
today'."
"We're suffering from a plague of sentient knives jumping out of
cutlery drawers and flying around the streets, like something from
an Iain M Banks novel, looking for somebody to stick themselves
into." the other rob,
Samiszdata.net blog comments.
The political classes have spent a generation deconstructing
British civil society and the family and now they're surprised at
the results?
And: Cherie Blair: 'I
fear for my children' (The Independent) - WTF! She has
the gall to say this! (For our foreign readers, Cherie Blair is the
wife of our former Prime Minister who presided over policies
directly responsible for the state of Britain today.) Her answer
is, of course, more of the same failed, Stalinist police state
policies that contributed to the problem in the first place.
DC vs
Heller judgement from SCOTUS, Thu Jun 26
2008
Although not a unanimous decision, there was unanimity on one
very important point: the Second Amendment protects an
individual right. Well, duh. This is hardly news to those of
us who've studied the issue but it seems to be a shock to the
press.
Note on p19 in the majority decision Justice Scalia (who,
masterfully, completely trashed the dissenting opinions) talks
about the natural law right to armed self defence that pre-exists
the US Constitution and is recognised in English common law. Now
perhaps someone will believe me when I say it.
I don't understand why people can't wake up and smell the
coffee. What is wrong with you people?
"There are none so blind as those who will not look. If you are
one of those who will look, take a look around. You are
surrounded - surrounded by millions who will not look. These
are the blue pill people. Who are these blue pill people and why
won't they look?"
Morpheus, The Matrix, 1999
Register your vote in the poll, for what it's worth.
The UK's Channel 4 weighs in with its Disarming Britain
series, the same old anti-gun, anti-knife, anti-self defence
propaganda BS that's been peddled by the UK media and political
establishment for half a century and probably longer. The same
failed strategy repeated over and over again. Of course, this time
it really will make a difference, what with the intarw3bz
and all.
According to all reports, attempting to make a pro-self defence
comment (however anodyne) on the blog will not get past the
moderators.
And people say I'm crazy for saying that the police are a big
part of the problem.
Only free men - or Janissaries - are
allowed to bear arms, in case you hadn't noticed.
At least in Canada you're still allowed to defend yourself,
Montrealer acquitted in
shooting death of policeman (globeandmail.com) but don't
worry, the Canadian government is working hard to put a stop to
that.
Problematically for the gun and knife banning crowd, this can't
be blamed on differences in laws within the UK: although Scots and
English Law are significantly different, laws on firearms are
reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Scotland, if anything, has
more statutes bearing on knives… Sword ban is unkindest cut for
Highland dancers (The Scotsman).
Guns (especially given a sufficiently loose definition) aren't
illegal enough already, apparently. Scottish politicians are
concerned they don't look foolish enough and are redoubling their
efforts. More laws - that always helps.
It certainly used to be the case that an interest in firearms
disqualified you from being in a police firearms team. A very
sensible policy, obviously.
I gave weapons instruction in the Army, including in the
Browning 9mm pistol,
and I can assure you that this level of incompetence was not
evidenced in the British Army at that time.
One problem is that that individual police officers need to
have control of their personal weapons at all times and practise
with them a lot more.
Guns are tools like any other, sensible handling and safety
precautions in their use are not difficult for anyone to learn.
Certainly, a lot easier than handling a car…then again you should
probably worry somewhat more about police driving…Police Crashes (BBC
News).
Meantime, in the US, the expansion of civilian gun ownership
has been concurrent with a drop in firearms-related accident
statistics: Firearm
Safety In America 2007 (NRA Institute for Legislative
Action).
Britain is now a bizarre anarcho-tyranny, strange and
unrecognisable from the perspectives of my childhood and young
adulthood. Laws and regulations proliferate so fast that nobody can
possibly keep track of them. Worse than that, British Law is now a
weird mashup of traditional English common law principles and the
alien (and frequently philosophically incompatible) European Code
Napoléon (Scottish and English law still haven't been reconciled
after 300 years, what are these people thinking!). The laws and
regulations are enforced both selectively and arbitrarily,
depending on local circumstances and the phases of the moon. No one
can be sure they aren't guilty, since no one can ever be sure
exactly what the crimes are.
The laws that are especially vigorously enforced are to do with
revenue raising, collecting taxes, fines, forfeitures and license
fees.
The police, and the legal system, in the UK are now more of a
liability than a help in pretty much any situation you can imagine
as an individual or a family. Cops 'Target Law-Abiding To
Hit Targets' (Sky News).
"Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want
them broken. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power
any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren't
enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be
a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on
the guilt. Now that's the system!"
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
This is an issue I've remarked on before (see my essay Controls on Replica Guns) and something that
the Army has in secret taken very seriously for a long
time. Units coming back from training abroad get very vigorous
inspections of equipment and personal kit - certainly, at
least, during the Cold War to my personal knowledge.
However, good soldiers are resourceful and highly
adaptable whatever they're engaged in…you'll just have to content
yourselves with hand-wringing and ponder on the hypocrisy of
sending young men abroad to take democracy (whatever that's
actually supposed to mean) and "freedom" at gunpoint to the heathen
whilst the fundamental human right of self defence is denied in the
UK.
When seconds
count, the police are only minutes away…and then they stand around
and do nothing very much. I really didn't know whether to laugh or
cry when reading this. Seriously. Are you all completely
mad?
And you think I'm crazy for wanting a gun
to protect myself?
So first they ban guns then they make military training
compulsory for schoolchildren because they need canon-fodder for
their illegal invasions and occupations of foreign countries…
reminds me of somewhere… ah well… Nothing to see here…
As is often the case with Blogs, the comments are the best
part.
In this case "the pro-gun lobby" is one guy,
Oleg Volk, an émigré Russian Jew living in America who supports
himself as a freelance photographer and graphic artist: VolkStudio. In stark contrast the
anti-gun lobby and the massive propaganda campaign associated with
it, said propaganda parroted uncritically by the mainstream media,
is heavily funded by governments and international business
corporations.
Not! If you believe that I'll have some of the pills you're
taking.
Having managed to avoid the issue for most of the 20th Century
the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is addressing the
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Various State Constitutions also have arms-related clauses, it
seems highly unlikely this will settle the matter.
The SCOTUS decision in this case could limit how far UN
treaties can go in disarming American citizens and by implication
the rest of the world. However, it seems clear to most informed
commentators that SCOTUS will hand down a decision that effectively
eliminates constitutional protections for gun ownership (for
instance as they have for property ownership).
My expectation is that "shall not be infringed" will
mysteriously allow for "reasonable regulation in the public
interest" which do not have to pass strict standards of
necessity, despite that being in blatant contradiction to all the
facts of the matter.
"The other side of the argument" that you'll never see in the
UK media.
Meantime, supposedly the problem is the law is too lenient:
Judges criticised over
gun crime (BBC News). Apparently criminals start obeying
the law if it's strict enough, you've just got to convince them you
really, really mean it because, obviously, they all know deep in
their hearts that they're going to get caught and punished.
Whatever the failings of the American political system, at
least there are some obvious differences between the candidates on
key issues - which is more than can be said here in the
UK.
The government needs - young - people to fight in
their illegal wars. If you aren't able to hold two contradictory
ideas in your head at the same time nothing the government does
will make any sense. Yes, time for you to re-read George Orwell's
1984 and ponder on Newspeak.
The Rochester Study may
give some clues to those of us with open minds who want real
solutions and not empty rhetoric.
Translation: second-rate political hacks want to ban some
things some more and pretend they have the moral high ground. More
gesture politics and nothing important will be done except for
wasting a lot of public money and making life more difficult for
law-abiding gun owners.
In addition, they may well be picking a fight with Westminster
since regulation of firearms and explosives is a reserved power.
Indeed, mysteriously the BBC's headline morphed from the one here
to "Air weapon ban proposals rejected" at some point after
it was posted. Perhaps they realise that people are beginning to
notice that all this "urgent political action" doesn't appear to be
having the desired effect.
The last thing they'll do is admit it's their failed social
policies, including their denial of that fundamental human right,
the right to keep and bear arms, that have lead us to the sorry
state of Scotland - and the rest of Britain - today.
European Commission report:
Crime, Security and Safety in the EU [PDF 591K].
For what I think is "the way" see, Gun
Law for the 21st Century. http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/gunlaw.html It's safe
to assume I won't be invited to the summit.
"The number of people treated for gunshot wounds has
reached a three-year high - and more than one in 10 of the
victims are under the age of 14 - prompting fears that Britain
is in the grip of an escalating problem."
If "gun control" is "the answer" that's not evident here in the
UK.
Leven-Torres succinctly outlines what myself and many others
researching the British Constitution have come to recognise: many
politicians and public servants of this country have been, and
continue to be, engaged in illegal and treasonous acts calculated
to destroy British sovereignty and deny the constitutional rights
and liberties of the British people.
The response from the MSM (mainstream media) and politicians is the same
tired old "we must get the guns off the streets," "tougher
sentencing," chorus repeated ad nauseam.
The ever-reliable Eisen, Gallant, and Kopel deliver a timely,
and thorough, review of National and International Law.
An important conclusion is reached after careful consideration
of the facts:
"No government has the legitimate authority to forbid a
person from exercising her human right to defend herself against a
violent attack, or to forbid her from taking steps and acquiring
the tools necessary to exercise that right."
The highest death-toll in a mass shooting in America. The
gunman roamed around for a couple of hours after an initial
shooting incident.
Already UK news commentators are anticipating the American
authorities using it as an excuse to disarm law-abiding American
citizens. It's laughable to imagine (even if, for instance, Hillary
Clinton manages to get elected as President) that the US is
anywhere in sight of the level of so-called 'gun control' that
signally failed to prevent the Dunblane Massacre - and even if
it was, the numbers of firearms and ammunition in circulation in
the black market will be enormous for decades to come.
The gunmen walking the streets in the UK are, apparently, of
little concern since handguns are banned here.
In case you imagine that 'modern' weapons are required for a
lone psychopath to commit mass-murder, take a look at the Bath School
disaster of 1927.
At present, it appears this was a classic "lone gunman" case
(the fact he may have been taking prescribed psychoactive drugs is
rather significant, however). Nonetheless, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) had previously
issued a warning about a possible Beslan-style militant attack on a
location such as this. Whatever is to be done, disarming the
law-abiding isn't going to be an effective response - if you
really want to prevent tragedies such as this.
I'm hopeful that public opinion is beginning to change, people
are beginning to understand that the solution does not lie in
'controlling' things. Fundamental changes are required to make
individuals more aware and more able to actively protect their
own safety and that of others.
Report from a source in Northern Ireland (NI) about Personal
Protection Weapon (PPW) permits in the province. NI is a part of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
however many things are done somewhat differently there than the
rest of UK for all sorts of very complicated reasons.
More of the same tired old bullshit that's lead us to where we
are today. You know what they say - "Insanity is doing the
same thing again and again and expecting different results."
Be sure to read They
have no guns - so they have a lot of crime by Dr Paul
Gallant and Dr Joanne Eisen. The disparity between the UK's
homicide rate and America's might not be as you imagine.
Having spent all that money compensating gun owners for their
confiscated guns, now suddenly let them buy new ones. In what way
does that make any sense?
Putting more guns into circulation whilst continuing to deny
the law-abiding their right to self defence with effective weapons
means that all this proposal would do is raise the spectre of a
"legal handgun" being used in homicide or suicide.
This is sophistry, propaganda intended to divert attention from
discussion about the real need to allow citizens of the UK
to own, carry, and use handguns for self defence.
However "strict" licensing regulations are they are no
protection from anything. Currently in the news a highly
trained, highly selected, US astronaut who went off the rails.
How can you be so foolish as to imagine "background checks" and
police examinations can see into the human mind? In any case, why
should policemen be allowed such discretion, such power over the
individual? Is that a free society…or is that a police state?
Either we all have guns, or only the criminals and the
government…though I'm not convinced they're so very different in
character - both desire a monopoly of force in inter-personal
relations.
In a free country we should all have guns. For what I think is
"the way" see, Gun Law for the 21st
Century. http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/gunlaw.html
By any reasonable objective standard Britain is a police
state. Britain is the most heavily-policed country in the
world. Britain is an Elective Dictatorship, the Doctrine of the
Sovereignty of Parliament means, in actual fact, that a British
subject has no rights.
Our Government "consulting the people" in a trendy "new" way by
using "E-Petitions."
Speeches from Ministers about the new "service" make it clear
that petitions, and pressure groups etc., that conform to desired
government policies are used for propaganda purposes, whilst the
others are dismissed as unrepresentative. See, for instance,
Times online:
A million motorists embarrass road price ministers.
A useful propaganda coup in light of recent headlines about gun
deaths. It's not clear whether this is in truth anything to do with
criminal activity. Certainly it won't be a problem for the police
to discover many technical violations of the UK's baroque "firearms
control" laws, even if the gun-dealer was not of criminal
intent.
I expect we would find that the "revolvers" mentioned in the
report are legal to own (with a licence) black powder, cap
and ball revolvers (modern reproductions of antique weapons).
Either way, it's guaranteed to make no significant dent in the
illegal market in firearms in the UK. Most illegal guns in the UK
are believed to be sourced from eastern Europe not America.
As always, the test of police efficiency is the absence of
crime and disorder not the visible evidence of police action in
dealing with it.
Yet more evidence that the government and its agents cannot
protect you. Not that they're not legally obliged to protect you in
any case. If you don't protect yourself and your loved ones,
nobody else will.
"MEMPHIS, Tenn.
A knife-wielding grocery store employee attacked eight co-workers
Friday, seriously injuring five before a witness pulled a gun and
stopped him, police said. …Police said two large kitchen knives
used in the attack were found at the scene."
The police, supposedly, were almost there at the time.
Yeah, right.
A citizen, successfully, using a gun to defend life. We won't
be reading that in the national press, either in the USA or
here - and certainly not without the spin.
A manifesto for business as usual. If putting people in prison
was the answer then Britain would have the lowest crime rates in
Europe. If passing laws was the issue then the Labour Government
has certainly done more of that than any government on record.
The unsightly, jug-eared, Charles Clarke as Home Secretary was
the head of the UK Government organisation, the Home Office, tasked
to "…ensure the protection and security of the public is aintained"
(quote from the Home Office website).
Get a clue people, can you not wake from your slumber and
simply open your eyes? The government cannot protect
you or the ones you love - it's up to you do
that!
That's why every home should have a gun. At least one.
A revealing piece. By way of justifying any statements of
purported fact it starts with the tired old rhetorical trick of
argument by anecdote and eventually makes it to argument by
assertion.
The article is a clear exposition of how so-called "international
law" is intended to do an end run around national government, local
political accountability, and national constitutional guarantees of
fundamental human rights.
The "human rights" advocated by the UN and its NGOs bear only
coincidental similarity to the rights recognised in the common law
and in British constitutional documents like Magna Carta and Bill
of Rights 1688.
Notice the fact that the Brazilians claimed back
their right to self-defence is waved off, without any
supporting evidence, as a protest vote against government economic
policies and nothing todo with RKBA.
The agenda of these so-called NGOs, who are in reality almost
entirely funded by governments unless they are lobbying bodies for
a cartel of business interests, is to rob you not only of your
ability to defend yourself but also of any ability to have any
effective say in the matter.
The American National Rifle Association is practically unique
amongst NGOs in being largely funded by the subscriptions from
small businesses and millions of individual American citizens.
Either a country can control its borders or it can't. If it can
then it doesn't matter what's happening next door. If it can't then
history amply demonstrates that it's ridiculous to imagine
international bodies are up to the job of organising anything for
the benefit of anyone other than the cartel of international
banking interests. (Then again, whether a country's government
chooses to control its borders is another issue.)
Nope, it's not April Fool's Day yet but the
Establishment is having a laugh anyway. Pointy stick amnesty coming
real soon.
Meantime it's politically convenient to have recorded violent
crime as lower - Violence Down Amid Pub
Law Change. The coldest winter months for decades certainly
helped put a crimp on carousal in public spaces.
Taking the two articles together that's an "11% fall" in
October-December after a "4% rise" previously in July-September.
Time to revisit your stats books and the original data perhaps?
(Are even BBC journalists really that stupid they can believe
government statistics, or are we supposed to be that stupid?)
The BBC report, predictably, re-iterates the tired old "blood
will run in the streets" nonsense that is invariably trotted out at
any suggestion of civilians defending themselves.
Now that Britain's Olympic bid has succeeded it's hard to see
why this is deemed newsworthy.
An interesting factoid not mentioned is that Malcolm Cooper was
the designer of the highly successful Accuracy International L96
Rifle as used by the British Army and many other armies and
police units worldwide. It's hard to imagine that civilian shooting
will, or can, make any significant contribution now or in the
future to the defence of the realm after the highly effective
civilian disarmament campaign run by the British Establishment
against its own population.
It seems Brazilians aren't as lame as Britoids and can
act in the belief that they and the majority of their fellow
citizens are responsible adults capable of making important choices
in their own lives - the public resoundingly rejected
unilateral civilian disarmament.
The BBC exposes its anti-gun bias by parroting the
transparently bogus statistics regarding the Brazilian gun amnesty
put forward by the anti-gun forces. Clearly Brazilians are rather
more sophisticated in their analysis than BBC journalists -
not difficult to imagine.
This, via email, from a Lawyer in Rio,
"I'm sure these numbers are doctored. Every governor
changes the way statistics are produced to suit his own aim of
showing drops in high profile selected crimes. They exclude, for
example, "robbery in public transport" from "general robbery" and
then claim "general robbery" went down on their watch. That is why
statistics in Brazil are unreliable. Didn't they claim that 90%
plus of the victims who reacted to a mugging died or were shot?
Isn't it obvious that when we successfully set a perp on the run we
don't then go to the police station to file a report? So only the
unsuccessful reactions make statistics…"
Obviously "our" Government "adjusts" its
statistics to its purposes; there is no clear source of data
that isn't tainted by political direction. The UN is a highly
politicized organisation but they don't have any obvious axe to
grind that would suggest they somehow treated Scotland unfairly in
this report.
Whatever the UN report actually purports to represent it's not
encouraging for those who claim that disarming the law-abiding is
the way to reduce violence in a community.
Not "gun-control" but the propensity of the UK Police to shoot
first and try not to ask questions afterwards.
"The IPCC is
investigating the shooting. On Friday, it announced it was also
investigating leaks to the media about details of its inquiry."
"Those details appeared to contradict some of the initial police
claims in the wake of the shooting."
I've commented before that the Police expect to
be given a license to kill and this is more evidence of that
attitude. Given that Israeli conscript soldiers manage to capture
real suicide bombers alive, that dead men don't tell
tales, and the "dead man's switch" is an old idea, I can only see
this as gross stupidity and breathtaking incompetence on the part
of the Police.
Even hardened SAS soldiers, not known for being shy about the
use of lethal force, find the Metropolitan Police's gestapo-styled,
balaclava-clad, thugs a bit hard to stomach - SAS
trainers denounce `gung ho' armed police.
What mystifies me, as ever, is why the public trusts the Police
to protect them when "the authorities" are manifestly incapable of
doing any such thing - in fact are much more likely to be a part of
the problem than anything to do with the solution - see, "More deadly
U.N. issues" by Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne Eisen.
A grab-bag of various authoritarian measures, a Bill of fifty
or so pages of the same old nonsense from the same old people.
Bans on various types of replica guns
have been brought in periodically with much self-congratulation on
the part of the chattering classes. The UK media establishment
fails to question why banning more and more things leads to the
requirement to ban even more things rather than "solving" the
underlying "problem."
As various commentators have remarked, bans on pointy sticks
can't be far away at this rate.
The British disease - redoubling your efforts and looking
even more foolish - in full song, as ever.
I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again: I just
couldn't make this stuff up, it's too crazy.
How often is it necessary to point out that the problem is
the people not the things. Banning knives, or air guns, or
whatever else it is this week will not stop people using tools
to kill or injure or other people. Get a clue!
In Canada (of all places) a politician who has a clue about the
"gun control" issue. Sadly, no sign of anything like that on this
side of the Atlantic.
Quality article by Joyce Lee Malcolm. Though I can't see why
she thinks the public is likely (or even able) to do anything
constructive. It's certainly not clear to me that public opinion
in reality plays any part in informing Tony Blair's
policies, for all the media hype to the contrary. And the Tory
Party, who in any case are currently led by the guy who banned
handguns in the first place, are in no position to win an election
in the foreseeable future - as if they would be any different.
A burglar is defined in English Law as a person who
makes a forcible entry into a house after dark with intent to
steal. It's an old common law tradition (derived from Biblical Law,
see Exodus 22:2, KJV) that burglary
represents an escalated threat of violence and justifies the use of
lethal force by the householder.
The government, realising you can't operate a police state -
oops, I mean a modern liberal democracy - without jackbooted thugs
with assault rifles, has done a deal: Met police
call off gun protest
Allowing policemen to get away with murder makes us all safer,
apparently.
"No amount of government spin will hide the fact that
violent crime is out of control. We now have record levels of gun
crime, rocketing sex offences, a further 14% increase in violent
crime and overall crime is nearly 750,000 higher than 1998."
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis
You'd hope gun fatalities would be in decline with all the
money being pumped into the NHS.
"There are 'significant flaws' in the principles behind
the government's crime reduction strategy, according to a report by
an independent think-tank."
For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
"What is published in scientific journals may not be as true as
it should be" - seems the people at the The Economist
buy into the post-modern theory that "truth" has varying degrees
depending on circumstance.
Why fact-checking is important to you especially when
you're dealing with "the experts."
The Economist article calls into question people who are
inadvertently making statistical mistakes. However, in the
"gun control" debate (particularly on the 'anti' side) there's
plenty of deliberate falsification (not only of data, but also by
the use of inappropriate statistical techniques) and
misrepresentation.
"There is statistical evidence that firearms incidents
are increasing, and we should not be complacent"
Assistant Inspector of Constabulary Tim Hollis
The authorities feel there is the need to ban guns some more. The
word is that further restrictions on shot gun ownership are waiting
in the wings for a propitious moment.
"We need to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands
while allowing legitimate shooters to pursue their sport without
danger to public safety"
Home Office minister Caroline Flint
What exactly is a "legitimate shooter" pray tell, when more and
more types of guns and gun-like things get banned with every
passing decade?
Yes Virginia, these people are as crazy as they seem.
"Gun crime" in England and Wales according to the Home
Office.
As per usual, firearms-related crime is highest in major
metropolitan areas - least legal guns and most
policemen - and lowest where there is highest legal gun
ownership and fewer policemen.
In which we see that the Dunblane tragedy continues to be
invoked during media posturing re Britain's "gun laws."
Also see The Guardian report: Death
in Woolwich - "Guns are becoming ever more common in
British cities, and rates of shootings and murders are
spiralling."
In a BBC Radio poll of 26,000 people, the use of lethal force
against an unwanted intruder in the home was the favoured choice of
a large proportion. Those people appreciate that someone who is
prepared to break into an occupied dwelling is likely to be
prepared to engage in lethal violence. Our Right Honourable
leaders don't approve of people defending themselves however -
usually claiming their absurd belief is that the public are valuing
property over life, which is not the issue. It's about the
right to defend yourself against those who intend to do you
harm.
What really puzzles me is that the great British public doesn't
understand the difference between Direct Democracy and
Representative Democracy and think they have a say in
things in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Although the number of holders of firearms licenses is falling,
this hardcore of gun nuts are holding larger numbers of weapons.
Presumably a stop will be put to that now it's been noticed. The
Scotsman (displaying their usual "high standards of
journalism") originally got this report wrong by claiming the
official statistics represented handguns rather than
firearms, having forgotten that handguns ("small weapons") were
prohibited in Scotland in 1997. They printed a (small) notice of
retraction in the next day's issue.
Somehow illegally-carried knives are something to do with this
too, at least in the febrile minds of The Scotsman
reporters. But I guess that's as logical as imagining legally-held
firearms relate to criminal usage of firearms without any evidence
to show that to be the case. And they're too feeble-minded to
question the proposition that "successful policing" means more
criminals.
Even after the figures have been "adjusted" violent crime is
shown as being up. The government is, of course, blaming everyone
and everything but themselves.
When a UK politician sues for libel you know you're on to
something.
If I posted a fraction of the allegations I receive of satan
worshipping paedophile rings with top politicians as members…there
probably wouldn't be space for much else on the server.
Quite apart from the Dunblane angle, an interesting test case
for law and the Internet.
An Observer/ICM poll on public attitudes to crime in
Britain. Fascinating that, in spite of relentless anti-gun
propaganda from the British media, as high as 25% would
have a gun for self-defence if it were legal in the UK (which
currently it certainly isn't).
This was published as part of The Observer's
"Crime Uncovered" reporting. The accompanying editorial claims
that public perception is wrong that crime is up but
official statistics saying crime is down are right. Heaven
forefend: who are we lowly peasants to be stupid enough to
believe our lying eyes?!! - even given that the
Police fake crime
stats.
David B. Kopel, Joanne D. Eisen, and Paul Gallant, "Gun
Ownership and Human Rights," The Brown Journal of World
Affairs, Winter/Spring 2003 - Volume IX, Issue 2.
"The previous issue of the Brown Journal of World
Affairs (Volume IX, Issue 1) contained a collection of articles
arguing for dramatically reducing the numbers of small arms and
light weapons (SALW) in the hands of 'non-state actors.' In this
article, we suggest that such a reduction is neither realistic nor
desirable. Should the reduction project succeed, the result might
well be a substantial increase in mortality."
This time in Scotland - aren't people tired of this kind
of bs propaganda yet?
News from Iraq is that UK troops are setting up a gun amnesty
in Basra. It's what occupying forces do, clearly. And obviously
it's such a good idea to make yourself defenceless in the face of
marauding gangs of looters.
Or rather, a token few are made public. I tend to go with the
stupidity rather than malice explanation for the secrecy
surrounding the Dunblane documents. The complete incompetence of
the various authorities in dealings with Hamilton is clear from
what is already public knowledge, in any case.
Excessive secrecy has long been a major flaw (from the
standpoint of the average joe public) in the British system of
government.
Yet more evidence, if that were needed, that the British
Shooting Sports Council (BSSC) is part of the problem, not part
of the solution. BSSC is not even representative of the shooting
public let alone the British public in general.
A close friend of Martin's, Richard Portham, said: "He
told me he had seen one of the reports from a probation officer who
said he shouldn't get released because he was a danger to
burglars."
I guess my uncle in Texas wouldn't understand: he has a sign
nailed to his garden wall that says "Trespassers will be shot" and
his M1 Garand (my favourite rifle, I imagine it was at Iwo
Jima) under the bed - so far it's worked for him.
BBC news reviewing Joyce L Malcolm? I
definitely woke up in bizarro world today. I think they posted this
to fool American readers of the BBC website into thinking there's
some kind of RKBA debate going on in the UK. There isn't.
Hell will freeze over before any remotely electable UK politician
backs RKBA.
Of course, since Police fake crime
stats we can only wonder as to what the real situation is.
Given that the murder rate is at the highest level ever recorded I
think it's safe to infer that the increase in gun crime isn't a
matter of changes in reporting methods or statistical
analysis.
The police have said little substantive but have indicated it
does not involve "terrorism" but is linked with Birmingham's gang
culture and that the girls were bystanders caught as collateral
damage in a gunfight. Radio and TV news reports have talked of a
"bullet-riddled" car and large quantities of empty cartridge cases.
It's believed that at least one automatic weapon was involved.
Police say that witnesses are
frightened to come forward for fear of reprisals. How I laughed
at Morris's misquotation of Edmund Burke, I hope it was irony on
his part but I fear it's just stupidity. Here's a real quote for
him (and you):
"It is an advantage to all narrow wisdom and narrow
morals that their maxims have a plausible air; and, on a cursory
view, appear equal to first principles. They are light and
portable. They are as current as copper coin; and about as
valuable. They serve equally the first capacities and the lowest;
and they are, at least, as useful to the worst men as to the best.
Of this stamp is the cant of not man, but measures; a sort of charm
by which many people get loose from every honourable
engagement."
Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the cause of the present
discontents, 1770. In The Works of the Right Honourable
Edmund Burke, edited by Henry Froude, Oxford University Press,
1909, Volume 2, page 83.
The witnesses are caught between a rock and a hard place: on
the one hand they have the gangsters with machineguns who will kill
them if they speak out, and on the other they have the policemen
with machineguns who are taking bribes from the gangsters to turn a
blind eye to the drug-dealing…
"Because of the huge explosion in organised crime and
drugs money we've now got police officers who can take bribes of
£50,000 or £80,000 to subvert an individual job or series of jobs
or who are prepared to recycle drugs for significant profit."
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon, The
Guardian, 29 Jan 1998 (forced to comment on incontrovertible
evidence of police
corruption).
Not an auspicious way for Birmingham to start the New Year.
Sadly this type of incident is becoming ever more commonplace in
modern Britain's metropolitan areas.
Judging by commentary in the UK media it looks likely to be
used as an excuse to promote
further "gun control", including pushing UN efforts to
"internationalise" gun control. Of course, automatic weapons used
in crime in actual fact originate from government armouries (well,
mostly, given how easy they are to make) so it's clear that
disarming law-abiding private citizens isn't going to interfere
with gang warfare using military weapons.
Apparently it's not rock n' roll, the Devil's
music is rap. Maybe they've been playing the records backwards.
I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again, I couldn't make
this stuff up, it's just too crazy.
"Illegal use of firearms rose by 20% this year compared
to 2001."
Other Metropolitan areas in the UK have seen similar increases
in both firearms crime and the numbers of armed police deployed.
Policemen with holstered Glock Model 17 9mm
pistols are becoming a familiar sight for more and more British
subjects.
"We must have the ultimate protection of a firearm to
protect not only society but ourselves."
Norman Brennan
If only because they're so busy preventing me from protecting
myself perhaps? I say no to routine arming of the
police unless or until the right to keep and arms for citizens is
recognised. The police should not have rights and
liberties a citizen doesn't have, which they surely do now. (If you
don't like it, get a different job.)
Note Brennan's words: the duty of the police is protect public
order not to protect you, the individual. It's up
to you to do that.
It's quite simple - because they're actively disarming the
law-abiding general public the British police are part of the
problem, not part of the solution. See Richard Munday's essay "Bill of Rights" from 1996
for analysis of the problematic nature of the British Parliamentary
system.
"More
deadly U.N. issues" by Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne
Eisen explains why I don't like the idea of only the police and
military having guns. They're the ones who carry out the genocide!
If you think "it couldn't happen here" you'd better start reading
your history books.
What I think the "Maryland sniper" tells me
about "gun control" - or how I learned to stop worrying and love
the gun.
I have to admit, however, that I'm not optimistic as to the
likelihood of the required systemic change in political beliefs on
the part of the public and political classes actually coming about.
People in Britain seem minded to reward the multifarious and
manifest government incompetence by agreeing to pay more taxes. Go
figure.
"Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began 100 years ago, undermining claims by ministers
that they have got violent crime under control."
You'd think it's not exactly a vindication of the UK's confiscatory
"gun control" policy and the handgun ban…
"Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than
900 detectives investigating all murders in London, blamed drugs
and a greater availability of guns."
Murder rates in America, where gun purchases saw a boom after
9/11, have fallen since 1995 as have those of France and
Germany.
Given how hard the Government works to massage these figures
downwards, particularly you'd think right now with opinion polls
reporting public unease about violent crime, you've got to wonder
just how bad the real figures really are. Check out my
essay about UK homicide
statistics written in 1996. (The suicide rate
is also under scrutiny so it's going to be harder to hide
murder in the suicide figures in future.)
Mike Burke's April 2000 essay on "Reasonable Force" seems even more pertinent
today. The truth is timeless.
It's official that the prisons are full
already, the UK imprisons more people per capita than any other
European country, so some new thinking is long overdue. I
say it's long overdue to give the guns back to the people.
Tony Blair gave up on his Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament but he won't end
unilateral disarmament of the British public.
A new book from historian Joyce Malcolm, published by Harvard
University Press, has some interesting things to say about "gun
control" in England seen from a US perspective.
My feeling is that the powers-that-be are getting nervous at
the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is (finally) getting
some press. The rise in violent crime in general and gun crime in
particular spite of a handgun ban allied to the legal opposition to
self-defence of any kind is making the "guns/self-defence
causes a violent culture" nonsense which is the official line look
blatantly absurd.
A few token "legal" handguns will always come in handy as a
scapegoat to explain why a gun ban doesn't work, and this (empty)
posturing will take the public debate away from right to keep and
bear arms and firmly into all the "sporting use" nonsense.
"Anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm will have little
difficulty in doing so whether genuine, reactivated, modified or
replica." National Criminal Intelligence Service report
When policemen can get away with executions like this with no
legal consequences they clearly have license to gun down anyone,
anytime. It's not the first such incident and it's safe to say it
won't be the last…
No shit Sherlock. Does any thinking person really ever
believe what agents of the government tell them? So many important
cases have turned out to involve faked evidence for instance in the
case of the
Lockerbie bombing, let alone in numerious of the trials of
"Irish terrorists."
Notice the Police deflate the violent crime figures
for attacks on private citizens but inflate the figures
for attacks on policemen.
Clearly we're so much safer after all those guns were banned,
in spite of the papers being full of this stuff and the occasional
drive-by-shooting…but wait, have I slipped into a parallel
universe…
Two gunman walk into East Berkshire Magistrates Court in
Slough, England, fire shots, pistol-whip a policeman and escape
with two men who were on trial.
Fortunately no-one was killed. I doubt any of the police or
security officers were armed with anything more than batons and CS
spray.
BBC Radio News is, as I type, castigating the American press
because
the death of Kayla Rolland is front-page news in the UK but not
in the US. That is indeed a revealing fact: the UK press and the
Establishment are still trying to justify the UK gun ban by
reference to events in America. Where's the front-page treatment of
the children killed by car airbags…killed by prescription
drugs…killed by "speeding" motorists…by any number of rather more
mundane but arguably "preventable" circumstance?
It's never about facts, it's always about propaganda.
And it isn't about "gun control" - except where that means
gun ban.
Here's a question for you all: what if the boy had, instead of
a gun, taken a packet of drugs from the crack-house he lived in and
one or some of his classmates had died because of experimenting
with those? Or is that impossible because drugs are banned?
The politicians "feel our pain." That's a comfort.
It's odd how Tony Blair thinks it's bad to
believe in karma, but animism is fine - you can blame
inanimate objects for motivating a person's behaviour.
Strangely, shootings in the UK receive what is in comparison
limited news-coverage: April 23rd's shooting spree in
Manchester involving a high-speed car chase, armed police, and
the wounding of five innocent bystanders (and of course banned guns
including a Kalashnikov) doesn't make a dent in the
prominent position of the Colorado shootings on the BBC News
website front page on the day after - it's well down the page
amidst the also rans whilst Colorado features prominently as a
headline. I guess even UK journos aren't stupid enough to claim
banning things that are already banned will help.
This article from The Scotsman confirms that the
Scottish Office and the Home Office are intending to go ahead with
further gun bans.
They may use "administrative" measures rather than further
primary legislation: the law gives the Police and Secretary of
State extremely wide-ranging discretionary
powers.
"The gun that won the West," nowadays known as "The Brooklyn
Special," takes the heat from the anti-gun crowd in the run-up to
new legislation banning further classes of firearms.
With orders from the Home Office that owners had three
months from July 1st to surrender their
centre-fire handguns at police stations.
This was expected to gather about 160,000 guns - although
all (legal) guns are individually registered to their owners, no
official figures for the number on certificates are available.
.22 handguns were included in the hand-in: to receive
compensation (at some unspecified future date) the .22 must have
been handed-in during the July to October period.
Military weapons, ammunition and explosives entering the
European black market via diversion from the
vast stocks of military and police weapons is one of the
reasons why restrictions on civilian ownership aren't diminishing
the availability of weapons and ammunition to criminals and
terrorists.
With nearly three million members in the USA, the NRA -
"America's oldest civil rights organization" - becomes
international. Report from the
New York Times.
Holy Moses! The 72-year-old actor
Charlton Heston voted First Vice President of
the NRA.
An article from Guns & Shooting Magazine of
March 1996, written before the Dunblane Massacre of 13 March 1996.
An excellent analysis of the sorry state of British shooting and
how the "the shooting community" has lost sight of the real
picture.
"The documentary maker exists in the same parallel
universe inhabited by the Iraqi information minister"
Michael Moore's "documentary" about American culture has
received rave reviews in the UK. The essays referenced above show
why Moore's work is certainly not a documentary in the
accepted sense.
Derek writes: 'Earlier this month I received a copy of a
lengthy, 2-page article in the "Southern Daily Echo," a regional
newspaper in southern England, in which a senior policeman was
claiming that more police controls over who could have shotguns
would reduce violent crime. These claims were associated with an
incident on New Year's Day in which a Michael Atherton used a
licensed shotgun to murder 3 women and commit suicide. I wrote this
letter to the Editor.'
Derek writes: "In December 2010, the Home Affairs Committee of
the UK Parliament held an Inquiry into the mass shootings by
Derrick Bird in Cumbria the previous June. Caroline Lucas, MP, the
Leader of the UK Green Party, recommended to a constituent that the
UK's gun laws should be dramatically tightened. I wrote to Caroline
Lucas and circulated my letter to my mailing list [see entry
below]. A subscriber wrote to congratulate me on the letter,
opining that it would have a beneficial effect on Ms. Lucas."
Derek writes: 'I have been sent a recent letter from a UK
Parliament Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, to one of her
constituents outlining her favoured gun control policies. Her
proposals would be so destructive that I felt compelled to write to
her.'
Derek writes: 'On the 15th July the Home Affairs Committee of
the UK Parliament announced an "Inquiry Into Firearms Controls", as
a result of the multiple murders and shootings by Derrick Bird in
June and Raoul Moat in July, in northern England. Submissions of
not more than 2,500 words have been invited and must be provided by
27th August. Over the past 25 years or so I have made a number of
submissions to various parliamentary/governmental agencies, both in
the UK and elsewhere, regarding gun control legislation. Sometimes
the submissions have been on specific aspects of a gun control law,
sometimes, as in the present case, on the law as a whole. I have
never received a considered, detailed response. Probably more
significantly, the UK Home Office has an extraordinarily consistent
100+ year record of pursuing expensive and destructive strict gun
control policies in the total absence of meaningful, published
research. Will the present Inquiry be any different? Historical
consistency suggests probably not. But those who believe that the
Rule of Reason should apply to governmental activities, have a duty
to try…'
Derek writes: 'I am often asked to briefly summarise "the
situation." I have squeezed a new "Gun Control Basics" document
onto one page. You will be the judge as to whether it has been a
useful exercise or not.'
A utilitarian answer based on the American experience of CCW
laws.
[I believe "public safety" is just the convenient excuse
governments use to justify reneging on their duty to protect
individual rights. For me, the question is nonsensical - the
individual is the public and the individual
self-evidently requires the means for self-defence. --
Johnny]
Files from the Public Records Office, and the Record Office
House of Lords, originally transcribed by Norman Basset.
Norman has now moved on to explore The Dharma. We all
remember him fondly, I'm sure.
Unlawful Drilling Act, 1819 ('The War Against Terror' goes
back a long way):
Although the 1688 Act is still legally in force according to
various authorities, the UK now has a new "Bill of Rights" (due to
European Union aspirations, though of course it's a bill of
entitlements not rights) which is clearly as worthless as
this.
Scotland has its own version, Claim of Right Act 1689 (which is, of
course, guaranteed by the Treaty of Union, 1707). It is clear when
you read them that they're essentially the same document somewhat
rephrased.
Has a storied history, having been disbanded at least once due
to infiltration by establishment operatives working to subvert its
original aims. (But then, if you're making MI5 mad you know you're
on to something.)
My Letters to my MP re Bill of Rights
1688 flew this argument, which as you can see from the exchange
got short-shrift from the legally trained Alistair Darling,
MP.
Mike Burke's appeal in the High Court re the Bill of Rights
1688, [1999] EWCA
Civ 92 3, resulted in the judgement that the Bill of Rights
1688 wasn't a bill of rights at all, it was simply a declaration of
the law as it stood in 1688. Which is clearly bullshit but that's
High Court justice for you. In the Claim of Right Act 1689 the
principle is stated as…
"That the Dissarming of protestants and Imploying
papists in the places of greatest trust both Civil and military the
thrusting out protestants to make roome for papists and the
intrusting papists with the forts and magazines of the Kingdome are
Contrary to Law"
…which makes it clear that it's the disarming of people that is the
illegal act. It's clear to me that it was illegal to deny RKBA then
and it's illegal now.
"IV That no Papist or reputed Papist, of refusing, or
making Default, as aforesaid, shall or may have or keep in his
House, or elsewhere, or in the Possession of any other Person to
his Use, or at his Disposition, any Arms, Weapons, Gunpowder, or
Ammunition (other than such necessary weapons as shall be
allowed to him by Order of the Justices of the Peace, at their
General Quarter-Sessions, for the Defence of his House or
Person)…"
In fact the Claim of Right Act 1689 makes explicit the
distinction between rights (lawes, i.e. customary or common law),
statute law (statutes), and the freedom to simply do your will
(freedomes)…
"All which are utterly and directly contrary to the
knoune lawes statutes and freedomes of this realme"
For the official government line, refer to: British
Self Defence Governing Body, the Centre for Physical
Interventions, incorporated under authority of Statutory Instrument
1685.
This legal position on the status of the Bill of Rights and
Magna Carta sets a precedent for UK law
thanks to the amusingly circular logic of it all. (And does not
appear to have considered Mike Burke's case.)
This ruling also encapsulates why, in the UK, we now don't have
any rights, only entitlements, and just how pernicious "the
Doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament" really is (but see
below).
Then in February 2002 along came the "Metric Martyrs"
judgment and everything had suddenly, mysteriously, changed -
it had become expedient to resurrect the idea of "fundamental"
Constitutional Law…
"Now, suddenly, the notion of fundamental law has been
pulled out of the legal grave in which it had been rotting for
three hundred years, and declared part of the law of our
Constitution."
An excellent discourse on the whole sorry mess. No, really -
it's all simply made up as we go along!
Note that although Scotland's legal system is distinct in many
respects from England & Wales, in the case of primary
legislation affecting firearms sale, ownership, and importation,
the parliament in Westminster and the Home Office have reserved the
powers to make and direct the enforcement of the pertinent
laws.
It would seem crystal clear given the Declaration of
Arbroath, 1320, that the people of Scotland are
sovereign, not the parliament at Westminster. If that
parliament did have any pretensions to sovereignty it abrogated
them with the Treaty of Union, 1707. Anyhoo, the various Justices
and Justiciary are still arguing the toss over what the Treaty of
Union actually means in practise.
Home Office instructions to the Police on the Firearms Acts,
1968-1997 and Firearms Law in general.
The latest edition I could source is 2002.
This is the definitive, official government, source for
information on how the Firearms Acts should be interpreted by the
Police and Courts in England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland
law and practise is variant in many respects (see below).
Firearms for personal protection.
13.72 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for
the applicant's, or another's, protection, or that of premises,
should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an
acceptable means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the
view of successive Governments for many years that the private
possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is
likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle
should be maintained in the case of applications from
representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large
quantities of money, or from private security guards and
bodyguards.
Thus common law, the Bill of Rights, Blackstone, and any appeal
to RKBA are dispensed with purely by administrative fiat. Allied to
this administrative policy, the Home Office and all other
government agencies and affiliates (e.g. numerous
government-sponsored NGO) have consistently promoted anti-gun
propaganda and objectives, both nationally and internationally.
Objective facts and research not supporting this agenda are not
only ignored, they are invariably mis-represented. All with
collusion on the part of the main-stream media. There has been no
effective public, or political, debate on the issue of self-defence
rights for UK citizens. The UK as an example of "representative
democracy" at its finest…one should hardly think so. It seems this
sham is what will masquerade as a "free society" in this brave new
century of never ending phony war.
It appears to me that GW Bush's enthusiasm in this new
millennium for the doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" takes the
debate into a whole new territory.
This is a required reading for its analysis of the common
law.
Note on p19 in the majority decision Justice Scalia (who,
masterfully, completely trashed the dissenting opinions) talks
about the natural law right to armed self defence that pre-exists
the US Constitution and is recognised in English common law. Now
perhaps someone will believe me when I say it.
Johnny says: the law is just made up stuff and
it's the guys with the guns who get to say what it is and what it
means.
As Lysander Spooner said:
"Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of
governments, unless it be understood that the people will by force
compell the government to remain within constitutional limits.
Practically speaking, no government knows any limits to its power
except the endurance of the people."
Home Office Statistical Service
Annex G
This little gem by the expert statisticians at the Home Office is…quite something.
This is meant to be unbiased, expert statistical analysis
but is largely an uncritical citing of the deeply flawed Killias
Study (a piece of non-science that should never have been published
in an academic journal - see Steve
Kendrick's submission to the Cullen Inquiry, for instance) and
the thoroughly discredited Sloane and Kellerman study. (Yes, there
is a typo in one of the tables; that was in the original.) It's of
note that the Home Office's own statistics showing an apparent
on-going decline in legal gun ownership in the UK get no mention. I
sent my essay "Lest Darkness Fall" to the
Cullen Inquiry after I read it. It's also interesting to read
The Lott & Mustard Study on the
effects of the Concealed Carry of Weapons (CCW) Laws passed in the
90s many of the States of America, or Clayton Cramer's and David
Kopel's analysis
of the historical and current context of CCW laws. It isn't
just the British people who have their "betters" lying to them:
take a look at the Gallant and Eisen article, "Canada: Lies To The North Of Us" for the
outrageous statistical shenanigans the anti-gunners in Canada
pulled off. Home Office document available inPDF version
[58K]
Was Cullen Misled? - documents from Peter
Jackson -
It seems clear that the Home Office has its own agenda and has not
at any stage attempted a properly objective analysis of factual
evidence. This being demonstration of how government works in an
informed, mature democracy one must suppose.
"[T]he Establishment is populated by people who get
their kicks out of pushing other people around. It controls funding
and most of the media. It is not so omnipotent that it can proceed
without evidence, so it buys the evidence it needs. It does not
commission research, it commissions results." John Brignell's
Numberwatch
UK Labour Party's "Control of Guns"
document
As submitted to the Cullen Inquiry. Read this and see the future of
British "gun law". The Labour Party is now in government. Jack
Straw went on to become a Home Secretary, George Robertson a
Defence Secretary. Labour Party document available inPDF version
[27K]
UK NRA Reply to the Labour
Party
The United Kingdom National Rifle Association (yes, we do have one)
replies, and without ever mentioning the right to keep and bear
arms.
"[T]he freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right - subject neither to the democratic
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility."
But then again, it seems nobody believes in natural rights
nowadays. Or notices that the Americans got their ideas on rights
from the English Bill of Rights of 1688.
Dunblane Memorial Pages (no longer
active)
The "Snowdrop" petition, of concerned subjects who want to ban
guns. This reached 705 000 signatories and was submitted to
Parliament. See the Gun Control Network which is
the successor to "Snowdrop."
The Cullen Report and the Government
Response
Locally as PDF, or from
Stationary Office WebServer, or local MS Word 6.0 file of the
Report only -
Home Secretary Michael Howard's
letter "FIREARMS CONTROLS" to Members of
Parliament -
in which Howard makes clear (without giving reasons why) that he
intends to impose requirements in addition to such as
suggested by Lord Cullen.
Royal Assent was given on February 27 1997
(the date of "Royal Assent" signifying the use of the Queen's
powers as monarch to make an Act of Parliament the Law of the Land)
prohibiting the possession of handguns by law-abiding citizens of
England, Wales and Scotland.
In 2005 the Home Office came under fire from human rights
groups for producing plainly false reports and documentation to
support the deportation of asylum seekers. Clearly the Home Office
is concerned not with reality but with "political reality" and can
not be relied upon as a useful source of statistical
information.
Note: these statistics are compiled by civil servants under
government direction, and are subject to political influence (and
revision). There is no plausible scientific objectivity in the
compilation and review of "official" statistics - for instance
see,
Number-crunchers demand independence.
In response to questions from Bill Wiggin MP and the Earl of
Shrewsbury, ministers confirmed that the life of the committee
would not be extended beyond 31 January 2004. It's likely a
new body more closely focused on the goal of civilian disarmament
will be formed.
National Statistics - the official UK statistics
site
Economic and social data relating to the UK available for
downloading.
Note: this is in no way independent from UK government
political control; no substantive attempt appears to be made to
make it plausible that these statistics aren't shaped according to
"political realities." (Though various of the chattering classes
sometimes make concerned noises that some independence from
government influence should be attempted - for instance see,
Number-crunchers demand independence.)
Nationmaster.com, Crime Statistics > Murders
(per capita) (most recent) by country
Encyclopaedia of data from around the world. Shows, for
instance, Switzerland with one of the highest per-capita firearms
ownerships in the world well below the UK in the ranking.
Propaganda is now called "Strategic Communication"…
"The UK is fast becoming the Centre of Excellence for
communication techniques. The UK spends more on research and
development of strategic communications than any other country in
the world demonstrating its determination to bring non-lethal
solutions to military conflicts. SCL is playing a significant part
in this work."
The GCN claims to be the only UK anti-gun organisation…apart
from all the political parties, the police, the courts,
and the media that is.
Their conclusions are mainly drawn in crayon but here they are
nonetheless. Apparently, intelligent people should support gun
control because they should realize they are too stupid to be
trusted with guns.
Uncritically recycles many of the dubious anti-gun studies
analyzed here. Their statement, "No research into gun ownership has
ever been conducted in the UK…" is plainly wrong, bearing in mind
Colin Greenwood's excellent and definitive book "Firearms
Control. A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and
Wales." (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1972,
ISBN 0 7100 7435 2).
The GCN's task is made trivially easy by the fact that none of
the UK shooters groups espouse the right to keep and bear arms and
so really have no justification for promoting firearms
ownership.
Whatever the state of their website, the GCN (a handful of
academics and lawyers sponsored by the Government and who represent
no-one as far as I can work out) is very influential in
policy-making - they had a member on the Firearms Consultative Committee.
You can email GCN and ask why their campaign "…to work for a
safer society where there are fewer guns and less gun violence"
seems to be resulting in a more violent society with
more guns in criminal use and more violence:
contact@gun-control-network.org.
No prizes for guessing that their answer is that we haven't
banned enough things yet. Actually, last I looked they're having
their cake and eating it: according to the GCN gun crime is going
down but we need to ban more things anyway because guns and
gun-like things scare intelligent people.
The website has articles and editorials and comes closest to
espousing the right to keep and bear arms for the UK, although in a
severely attenuated and heavily circumscribed form: see the
position paper, Proposed
changes to Government policy on firearms [PDF]. Cybershooters
was identified by the UK media as the most radical of the shooters'
rights groups following its formation at the time of the Cullen
Inquiry. However, IMHO, they qualify their support
of the right to keep and bear arms for self defence so much as to
negate it as a serious pro-gun-ownership argument for the UK. Like
many in the UK "pro-gun" camp they fail to follow the logic of
their own arguments.
Chartered to be engaged in furthering the
defence of the realm by promoting marksmanship but, curiously,
they do not concern themselves with the right to keep and bear
arms. Indeed, the UK NRA has close ties with the British political
establishment; against the wishes of its members it forbade the use
of the L1A1 service rifle
in NRA civilian "service rifle" competition (negating a plea that
semi-auto battle rifles have a "sporting purpose" in the UK in
anticipation of an opportunity to bring in prohibition which
arrived decades later via the Hungerford Massacre). The NRA has
been party to the British political establishments' agenda to
disarm the British public since the 1920s.
Formed post-Dunblane as "the voice of shooting fraternity." Not
concerned with the right to keep and bear arms. In fact the SA
explicitly states "That we do not follow a Right to Bear Arms
agenda."
With friends like that, who needs enemies.
The SA organised picketing of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in
protest at UK gun laws but this received no media coverage that I
noticed.
"I'm not anti-police, and I hate violence in society, I simply
have the belief that there aren't enough police officers to protect
everyone, all the time.
Therefore the only realistic alternative is allowing people to
defend themelves."
Graham Showell from Birmingham, England.
"Arm Britain.com is a website set up to campaign for the
relaxtion of the draconian firearms laws in the United Kingdom. We
acknowledge the inalienable right of self defence and see the
current laws governing the possession of weapons by the law-abiding
as a stranglehold on that right."
"A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral
system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by
constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed
encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed."
"As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people
by the collective political establishment, and others, the British
Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right
under article 61 Magna Carta 1215."
On 22nd May 2009 the Homegunsmith (Philip A. Luty) was, for the
fifth time in ten years, attacked by an armed police unit and
violently arrested at gunpoint.
In their latest onslaught against freedom of speech, press,
personal expression, and dissemination of ideas, the henchmen of
the State charged the Homegunsmith with "criminal offences" -
namely "Making a record of information likely to be of assistance
to terrorists." (Part of the all-encompassing 2000 Terrorism Act.)
That's right folks, writing books or articles on one of man's
oldest occupations - gunmaking - is now tantamount to an act of
terrorism in modern day Britain.
The Homegunsmith.com website has been strategically closed
whilst wounds are licked and the troops regrouped.
Sandra Uttley lived in Dunblane at the time of the Dunblane
Massacre and was working as a paramedic: "This site has been
created to call for a new Public Inquiry into the events of 13
March 1996 at Dunblane Primary School, and an investigation into
Central Scotland Police and their dealings with Thomas
Hamilton."
Think this is impossible? Ponder on the Tree of Woe over the
sorry tale of the gangsters in the political class and
the rise and fall of the Kray Twins.
Yet another "non-governmental organisation" (NGO) funded by
governments and driven by the wishes of the political elites:
"Supported by funders including the Governments of UK,
Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation,
Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Institute,
Samuel Rubin Foundation and Christian Aid…"
IANSA seeks nothing less than total disarmament of the civilian
population of the world.
"Events over the past decade have emphasized the need to protect
the individual's rights to defend oneself and one's family against
grave threats, including crime, civil unrest and terrorism.
IAPCAR is dedicated to preserving these human rights, but needs
your help in the fight.
We are excited to begin welcoming affiliate organizations. There
are no dues requirements; however, any donations would certainly be
welcomed and dedicated to furthering the goals of IAPCAR.
As we all know, international anti-gun rights groups such as the
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) are well funded
in their campaign to infringe on firearms rights.
IAPCAR was formed to counter those groups by rebutting the
misinformation and myths about firearms that are often
internationally published by these groups."
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms
USA pro-gun organisation which supposedly has a London office;
although neither I nor anyone I know has been able to contact the
London office nor does CCRKBA reply to requests for information
about its "London office."
"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry
concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on
organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use
them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task
forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed
to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much
publicity as possible."
Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000
The Foundation has a noteworthy track record in supporting
legal actions, or amicus briefs, in cases affecting the right to
keep and bear arms in the US.
The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and
Second Amendment Scholars.
Arguably a new implementation of Newsgroups are the
web-interfaced groups maintained by various portal sites. One of
particular interest here is
<DunblaneInquiry@groups.msn.com>.
For all who've reached the end, here's some wisdom from The
Guru -
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It
is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral
stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the
table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting
tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since
a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."
"The rifle itself has no moral stature,
since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil
men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and
while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness
by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with
rifles." "The Art of the Rifle" Col. Jeff Cooper
Perhaps we should listen to a true British statesman as
well -
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without
blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not
too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of
survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight
when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish
than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill
And we shall not forget -
"Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set
propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita
amittit." The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320 (It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours
that we are fighting but for freedom, for that alone, which no
honest man gives up but with life itself.)
Violence
Quelled As Cops Warn Off Vigilantes (Sky News,
2011-08-11) because, of course, the police are there to protect
you:
Why police were so soft on London looters: They 'were ordered to
stand and observe' as capital burned (but in Manchester they were
hunting looters within hours) (Mail Online,
2011-08-10).
When seconds
count, the police are only minutes away…and then they stand around
and do nothing very much. I really didn't know whether to laugh or
cry when reading this. Seriously. Are you all completely
mad?